Scientific evidence gets new legal stature

By Michelle Mondo :
June 19, 2013
: Updated: June 20, 2013 10:57pm

More Information

Legislation recently signed by the governor will give criminal offenders a new way to appeal convictions based on claims that new scientific evidence discredits forensic testimony from trial.

Senate Bill 344 outlines how scientific evidence relevant to the case can be used in a state-level writ for habeas corpus — essentially a request to appear again before the court.

It came amid a push for criminal justice system reform and during a session that saw the passage of the Michael Morton Act, which provides a more transparent discovery process before trial.

Currently, there's nothing in the criminal code to consider claims specifically based on the discovery of new, scientific evidence, according to the bill's analysis.

“Recent examples of such evidence include dog-scent lineups, misinterpreted indicators of arson, and infant trauma,” the analysis said.

Under the law, the appeal has to show the “current relevant scientific” evidence wasn't available at the time of the trial and that if the evidence had been presented the person wouldn't have been convicted.

Supporters of four San Antonio women fighting for exoneration in a sex assault case took to a group Facebook page citing the new legislation as a possible break for the women.

Elizabeth Ramirez and her three friends Anna Vasquez, Cassandra Rivera and Kristie Mayhugh were convicted in a bizarre 1994 sex assault case that spurred talk of Satanism after Ramirez's two nieces accused the four friends of the assault.

All four women have maintained their innocence and one of the accusers has since recanted. Only Vasquez has been released on parole and the other three women remain in prison.

Conclusions and testimony by the doctor who examined the two nieces has been called into question by lawyers representing the four women and in a San Antonio Express-News investigation published in 2010.

Mike Ware, the attorney for the women, called the state's expert medical testimony at the women's trials “materially inaccurate and extremely prejudicial.”

But, he said, it's too early to know if the new law will have a role in the case or if it could affect the women.